Merriam-Webster's lame game

I subscribe to the Merriam-Webster Word-of-the-Day, one of that cluster of e-mails I read as the coffee kicks in. Sometimes I'm a little disappointed when it turns out to be a word I already use all the time, but I've never been bored enough with it to unsubscribe. But they've done something deeply annoying to their format so I'm thinking about breaking up with them.

Classically, these e-mails were always titled with the word in question, like so*:

(Great word, too!) In the last month or six weeks, however, they switched to providing little "clues" in the subject, so that you have to open up the e-mail to be bitterly disappointed by how lame those clues are... I mean, to figure out what word they meant.

Barely a month in, the writers have clearly run out of amusing things to say about the day's words. Here's April 30:

Is it "a fun word," or is it perhaps the only noun used for "cave explorers"?

Exhibit B, from May 1st:


So I look at this subject and I think: "...Deaf?" Then I feel like an asshole, but one might argue that Beethoven is famous not only for being a great composer, but for doing so despite going deaf while producing his great work. See, Merriam-Webster? You did this to me!

Also, I might use "spelunker" but when am I honestly going to use pianistic?**

Okay, one more example, from May 3:


Here's a word I didn't know, but which, once I'd read the rest of the e-mail, I thought "They've got it all wrong!" The two definitions provided are

1 : to feel or express dejection or discontent : complain
*2 : to long for something

How are those "the blues"? I guess the second definition may qualify, but discontent is not "the blues." Complaining can be an aftereffect of "the blues," but it is not "the blues." Toss in the faux-catchiness of "This word's for you," and I can't even appreciate that it's related to the more common "to pine (for)," because I'm just annoyed.

I know they're only trying to help by making word acquisition more "fun," but given that these e-mails hit me at Maximum Annoyance Hour, I think they could be more clever and less "Uh, well, we have to title it something quick." It's not as if the creators of this e-mail are sitting over their coffee during their Maximum Annoyance Hour, thinking: "Spelunker. Why do we have to do this again?"

So I'll nominate myself for the job. I send a lot of e-mails and I'd be happy to recycle some of my own private subject lines until I have time to write eye-catching, click-through-inspiring masterpieces. How can you not open an e-mail with a title like "THERE IS NO GOD," "Don't forget to pack the world's tiniest violin" and "This is a horrible case, but I LOL'ed*** at the rhetorical question"? 'Cause I may have used all of those in the past week.**** Call me, dictionary denizens, and we'll go spelunking in the wide world of words together.

---
* These screenshots are not terribly exciting, I know. But I wanted some illustration.
** At work I have somehow (heh) gained a reputation as being the spelling/grammar person, proof I guess that one can only pose as normal for so long before Hulking out into full nerd. In my defense, apparently this chair needed to be filled; one of my colleagues recently asked me what a proper noun was.
*** Technically, L'ed OL. What.
**** I cherry-picked the most dramatic ones, but my point stands.